Letters

This is in response to the March 3 op-ed by Dan Esty, commissioner of the state Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, "State focused on cutting energy costs." This was in reply to my previous objections (Feb. 20 op-ed, "The rest of the energy story") to spending public funds on alternate-energy schemes I consider wasteful.

Mr. Esty seems to be insisting on pushing for more solar-energy projects despite the dismal results to date. He claims solar costs have declined dramatically and are becoming cost-competitive with traditional energy sources. But we have heard similar claims for decades. "Just wait," the advocates say, "the next generation of solar energy technology will solve all the problems."

Read more of this story and more!

You can purchase a single-day subscription for only $0.75 to read this and access all of our content and our E-Edition.CLICK HERE purchase a single day subscription.

Become an electronic subscriber to the Republican-American for only $8 a month. CLICK HERE.

Username:

Password:

Follow Us

Sandy Socks wrote on Mar 10, 2013 12:13 PM:

" Well Bill, Does this mean you're against cancer research too? I mean all the money we'll sunk into that really hasn't provided much results. Ditto for Alzheimer's and Lou Gerhig's diseases. Should we cut funding for them.

I read several times out of every 10,000 drugs researched only 5 make it to the market place. Scratch that research too Bill?

I remember in the 50s our space program was plagued with failures and high costs. Good thing you weren't in charge, huh Bill.

Whatever you think about oil, coal and natural gas remember, "There's only a finite amount in the ground." When its gone its gone. Yeah, we can squeeze more out of fracking and digging deeper and being more efficient. But eventually this planet will run out.

The sun, now that's a different story. The sun ( and wind from the effects of the sun) are going to be around long after our oil is depleted.

Now the questions I have for you are:Are you against this research because you think you'll have a few more bucks in your pocket at the end of the year?

Or are you against it because this appears to be a "liberal" issue? {Don't laugh, there are people here who don't believe in climate change because Al Gore is a champion of it and they don't want to be on the same side of the fence as him.}

" yeah, try putting up a windmill. the kennedys will shoot it down. prospect residents will wail about property values and noise pollution. not to mention, it gets cloudy sometimes and the wind doesn't always blow. and why have there been no nuclear plants built in decades?

we have abundant natural resources to tide us over until alternatives become economically and technogically feasible. the government should leave specilation and investment to those willing to risk and lose their investment, and stop using my tax dollars to advance what is, for now, nothing more than a political fantasy. innovation will be spurred as it always has been, by a desire to succeed financially. "

" al gore is a hypocricte and a charlatan. he does for the environmental movement what al and jesse do for race relations. i'm all for protecting the environment. no one has proven that climate change is man made. we can do things to help, but we should not do things that are detrimental to the country. "

Post a reader comment

We encourage your feedback and dialog. Please be civil and respectful.If you're witty, to the point and quotable, your reader comments may also be included on the Around the Towns page of The Sunday Republican. Readers must be registered and logged in to post comments on the site. Registration is free. Click Here to register.
A Subscription is not required to post comments only a Registration.